That is the nexus of the argument for me. Religious institutions should not be supported or used in any way by the state.
Especially since there are alternatives; if the real goal is to help people, then give the money to secular charities. The only reasons for making such a big deal of it being “faith based” are to divert money to the believers, and suck up to them.
I can understand that, but is it better for the needy to not receive the help? No real world scenario will be perfect.
Is an organization set up to provide services to the needy without proselytizing a religious institution simply because it was founded and staffed by religious people?
Doesn’t the purpose of the organization have a lot to do with it?
Do they pay taxes? 
Does any charity, whether or not it’s faith-based?
Touche.
I resort to the less poetic, “Church and State shall not be joined, and the State shall not subcontract caring for the welfare of it’s citizens.”
Where are you getting that last bit?
And just in case you don’t understand this. These are not proftable ventures. These programs do not make any money, and they actually have to match the funds they do get with funds of their own.
The argument that these programs somehow provide savings that can be redirected towards purely religious outreach is fatuous. It doesn’t. These are not programs these organizations would otherwise be funding.
What’s worse, a soup kitchen run by Catholic Charities or no soup kitchen at all?
I made it up.
I don’t object to a church running a soup kitchen, I object to churches getting money from the government for any reason.
Ah, but they’re not getting money from the government. The soup kitchen is. The Church is just running it.
Semantics. The government gives money to a soup kitchen run by a church.
Precisely. The question is what difference does it make who runs it? The Church has to follow the same SOCAS guidelines as any non-religious group. Why do you care if the people making the soup take communion or not? Is it better to have no soup kitchen at all?
Why not let Jews run the kitchen? Or Baptists? Or the KKK?
I can’t think of any reasons for them not to. You tell me.
Incidentally, trying to open up this kind of thing to a wider variety of groups is exactly what Obama wants to do.
That’s right. In fact, he mentioned Muslims, Hindus, and “people of no faith at all”.
In deciding which group or groups my run the kitchen the government gives money to (I don’t suppose in the future you’d agree that “groups may run the kitchen” means the same thing and save me typing ) the government appears to hold their behavior, motives and values over those of the groups not chosen.
I’d say no. See, for example, the International Red Cross.
Which is called the “Red Crescent” in the Mid East. A tiny nit pick, but it does indicate some religiosity.
Why give it to any charities? The experience of many other democracies proves government itself is not inherently incompetent at direct relief.
I’m with Lib here.
Now, I think it’s generally better to try to build secular aid agencies rather than get government entwined with religious agencies, because some proportion of those who need the aid will be offended at what looks to them like government sponsorship of religion & refuse that aid.
OTOH, there are also some people who will prefer a religiously based charity to a government office or private secular charity for their own reasons, so you can’t win. But allowing private charities (some of which are big on the Jesus) to compete for grants might help encourage effectiveness of tax dollars–to a point. Too many charity organizations in an area dilute funding into weaker streams & suck up needed funds for administration, so you don’t want to push it too far.
In short, I’m not sure this is the best idea, but it’s not hugely offensive to me.